The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**streamdragon**

Agricorp actually only owns only 4% of farmland in the US.

What they own is the product being grown. Chickens being the most obvious and egregious example. (See: John Oliver's segment on Tyson and US chicken farms)

Besides, what cooler mascot could there be than a Bull Moose! If it was good enough for Teddy "The Man" Roosevelt, it's good enough for America!

**BrotherGecko**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
For a second there I thought you said necron ideologues. I then thought of Dick Cheney.

All hail our Overlord Dickeckh Chenadiah.

**LordofHats**

streamdragon wrote:
Agricorp actually only owns only 4% of farmland in the US.

I don't care for your facts! RAGE!

**Co'tor Shas**

BrotherGecko wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
For a second there I thought you said necron ideologues. I then thought of Dick Cheney.

All hail our Overlord Dickeckh Chenadiah.

Spoiler:

**d-usa**

He truly is a representation of the political pulse of this nation.

**streamdragon**

LordofHats wrote:

I don't care for your facts! RAGE!

oh, you can still rage

**LordofHats**

That's pretty funny. I still feel bad for John Steward. He's a talented guy, but his (former) employees are all so much funnier XD

**Pacific**

A summation of the US Electorial candidates by Frankie Boyle

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/frontrunners-for-president-frankie-boyle

Your choices for president: an android, a creationist neurosurgeon or a postcoital cat

The absurdly long run-up to the US election has begun. This will be the first election fought under new rules where there are no limits to campaign donations: a change brought in on the grounds of “free speech”, when the supreme court decided that the Koch brothers not being able to say, “We own the president,” infringed their rights under the first amendment. Personally, I think Obama will be quite lonely once it’s all over, not least because he has allowed the police to kill most of the other black people.

Differences between the candidates are usually so slight that what the Democratic frontrunner thinks is pretty much just what the Republican frontrunner thinks on the days that he remembers to take his meds. But in something of a format twist, Bernie Sanders – an old-school socialist – has crowdfunded himself into a credible position for the Democratic nomination. I sincerely hope he wins, if only so that we see the first inauguration speech made from inside a giant, bulletproof hamster ball. The Democratic frontrunner is Hillary Clinton, a ruthless, steel-haired troll doll. Hers is the face that would haunt a lot of Libyans’ nightmares, if they were still alive. Unfortunately for her election prospects, Hillary has never quite learned to introduce humour or compassion into her speaking voice and on a good day sounds like an android trying to trick the last human out of a bunker.

At last week’s Republican debate, the candidates accused CNBC of displaying liberal bias. One reading would be that the GOP candidates are now so rightwing that they make a giant media conglomerate look liberal. Let’s not forget that the essential message of a Republican candidate is a tricky sell. That you love America, but hate all the groups that make up America. That you love democracy, but hate people. Donald Trump, who at best looks like a plughole in an orangutan sanctuary, is probably only running for president because this dimension doesn’t have a Superman he can give a hard time to. His hair, looking like a slovenly, postcoital cat, is actually one of the least weird things about him. He is lacking in charm or wit and is almost ferociously inarticulate. The US public has identified with him strongly. It seems that the electorate, possibly bored with rational thought, is toying with the idea of cutting out the middleman and just electing one of the business class through sheer force of Stockholm syndrome.

The old politics is dull, and what could be more exciting than electing a man who might declare war on the sea? His plans to build a giant wall sealing the US border with Mexico are entertaining, not least because it would be interesting to see a nation as heavily armed as America go into cocaine withdrawal. Somehow, I always imagine that Trump spends the evenings with his forehead pressed against the cold glass of an aquarium, talking telepathically to the tormented albino squid in which he has hidden his soul.

Indeed, the whole Republican field offers a bracing challenge to conventional notions of sanity. The current poll leader is Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who happens to be a Seventh Day Adventist and creationist. Creationists have often made me doubt evolution, but probably not in the way they think. His taxation policy is based on Biblical tithing, taking economic pointers from people who had a GDP of one golden calf.

Why do both parties rage against bias in what is actually a laughably servile media? Maybe it’s because the political class have an instinctive contempt for asking the public to decide anything meaningful, such as policy. So their campaigns have to be largely symbolic affairs about hope or hard work or whatever flavour of horsegak is polling well. Most campaign spending goes on advertising (65% of Obama’s “grassroots” campaign of 2012 was media spend) and advertising speaks in symbolism. Thus the parties may actually distrust any kind of rational inquiry, as what they’re saying doesn’t, and can’t, make any sense. Or maybe the reality of what they’re voting on is something nobody dare express. They’re voting on the exact speed of the drift toward a future of armies run by corporations corralling permanently travelling communities of cooks, cleaners and sex workers, as they underbid each other outside the entrances to gated communities to ensure they’re the ones let inside to service the fortunate. A future where the pursuit of happiness will make about as much sense as mounting an expedition to reach the horizon.

Of course it could be that the whole election is a bit like The X Factor, and they put a few lunatics in the early rounds to lure us into something we promised we’d never engage with again. By the end we’ll be back to two corporate glove puppets belting out the same tired standards. And no matter how bad the choice is, we’ll always have a preference. Clinton will be offering an expanded kill list of official enemies, secret corporate courts, and her first speech about Palestine will sound like it was written by the Hulk. A lot of otherwise rational minds will be praying for her to win.

**whembly**

My gawd that was pure rubbish.

I can't even...

**LordofHats**

I think it's pretty funny

**Ensis Ferrae**

CptJake wrote:

But honestly, all this is nothing but deflecting from my main point, I still do not see racism as a right vs left trait. There are racists across the political spectrum but there seem to be posters here who view it as a right wing phenomenon.

Here's the view from where I sit:

The Republican part is the current party of "racists" because it is consistently voting to get rid of, or limit/cut spending to the numerous social welfare programs (WIC, PP, etc) Quite often times, the rhetoric I see used by the people who want to get rid of these programs gets quite inflamed, and so racist that I wouldn't dream of ever repeating it here.

The irony is, you have traditionally right leaning states continuing to vote for congressmen who want to get rid of these programs, when the majority of the people receiving benefits, are white... The usual excuse I hear in these situations quite mind boggling.

I don't think that the majority of the politicians themselves are racists, any more than they are from the Dem/Left camps. IMO, it is that very vocal and absurd minority rearing it's ugly head that give credence to the view that "racism is a right wing thing"

**Dreadclaw69**

If you like your non-intervention you can keep your non-intervention

◆"So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach." - Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013
◆"We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope." - Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013
◆"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan." - Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013
◆"I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that's a sober decision." - News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013
◆"The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we'll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility." - News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013
◆"What we're not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground." - Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013
◆"Tomorrow I'll speak to the American people. I'll explain this is not Iraq; this is not Afghanistan; this is not even Libya. We're not talking about — not boots on the ground. We're not talking about sustained airstrikes." - Interview with the PBS Newshour, Sept. 9, 2013
◆"What I'm going to try to propose is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground; nothing like that." - Interview with CBS Evening News, Sept. 9, 2013
◆"Many of you have asked, won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are 'still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.' A veteran put it more bluntly: 'This nation is sick and tired of war.' My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria." - Address to the Nation, Sept. 10, 2013
◆"We are doing everything we can to see how we can do that and how we can resource it. But I've looked at a whole lot of game plans, a whole lot of war plans, a whole bunch of scenarios, and nobody has been able to persuade me that us taking large-scale military action even absent boots on the ground, would actually solve the problem." - Interview on Bloomberg View, Feb, 27, 2014
◆"With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria." - News conference in Newport, Wales, Sept. 5, 2014
◆"The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that." - Interview with Meet the Press, Sept. 7, 2014
◆"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil." - Address to the Nation on Syria, Sept. 10, 2014
◆"Right now we're moving forward in conjunction with outstanding allies like Australia in training Iraqi security forces to do their job on the ground." - News conference in Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014
◆"The resolution we've submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. ... As I've said before, I'm convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East." - Remarks at the White House, Feb. 11, 2015
◆"It is not enough for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set back organizations like ISIL, but to then, as soon as we leave, see that void filled once again with extremists." - Remarks at the Pentagon, July 6, 2015

**whembly**

Isn't the Obama administration using Bush's AUMF authorization to do this?

If so, any lefty head 'spoded yet?

And more importantly... why isn't this BIG news on the media???

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
Isn't the Obama administration using Bush's AUMF authorization to do this?

That's the attempt anyways. I find it a little dubious because ISIS is no longer officially affiliated with al-Qaeda. Of course, a new AUMF was put to vote last year, but Congress being Congress meant it went nowhere.

If so, any lefty head 'spoded yet?

Maybe because Obama is just a continuation of all the worst Bush-era policies?

And more importantly... why isn't this BIG news on the media???

That's a good question, Whembly. It isn't even on the Fox News front page.

**DutchWinsAll**

whembly wrote:
Isn't the Obama administration using Bush's AUMF authorization to do this?

If so, any lefty head 'spoded yet?

And more importantly... why isn't this BIG news on the media???

Honestly? Because it's 12 years later. People stopped physically demonstrating against the Iraq War by 2005, at the very latest, at least in any memorable way. Nobody really cares anymore, R or D or I. At this point a lot of people are angry, but, you know, keyboard angry.

Did anyone else catch that there were no Syrians at the recent peace talks? I only found out through John Oliver, but I mean how loud can you say proxy war before it gets meta?

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If you like your non-intervention you can keep your non-intervention

The best (worst) part about that is that the GOP butthurt not because President Obama said we would not intervene and now are, but because the intervention isn't big enough.

And, they're not wrong. In the choice between deciding we can't improve the situation and staying out (my pick) or deciding freedom exceptionalism whatever and sending 60,000 troops, he's picked a weird sucky middle ground. Essentially, we are going to get involved enough to get stuck with all the gakky parts of being involved, but not involved enough to actually make a functional difference.

I think it's a terrible decision, and I think it's also (another) unlawful conflict without any legal basis from Congress.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If you like your non-intervention you can keep your non-intervention

The best (worst) part about that is that the GOP is super butthurt not because President Obama said we would not intervene and now are, but because the intervention isn't big enough.

Nah...it's simply a lack of plan.

What's the end game?

**Ouze**

(sorry, I edited a little too slowly)

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
(sorry, I edited a little too slowly)

Oops... sorry. Yeah, I'd agree with your edit there.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
And, they're not wrong. In the choice between deciding we can't improve the situation and staying out (my pick) or deciding freedom exceptionalism whatever and sending 60,000 troops, he's picked a weird sucky middle ground. Essentially, we are going to get involved enough to get stuck with all the gakky parts of being involved, but not involved enough to actually make a functional difference.

I think it's a terrible decision, and I think it's also (another) unlawful conflict without any legal basis from Congress.

I agree that it is an absolutely terrible decision. We are involved in a small enough measure to be unable to do much to affect change. Getting involved more would not improve the situation much. No one in this Administration has an end game in sight.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Maybe because Obama is just a continuation of all the worst Bush-era policies?

Didn't he run on a platform, and continually promise, that he was not going to continue Bush-era policies?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Maybe because Obama is just a continuation of all the worst Bush-era policies?

Didn't he run on a platform, and continually promise, that he was not going to continue Bush-era policies?

Yes, but he has failed to live up to that promise. It's the reason why I laugh at Whembly et al. when he regurgitates all the derposphere "Obama is a commie socialist" nonsense; it just doesn't hold up when you take an objective look at what's going on.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If you like your non-intervention you can keep your non-intervention

The best (worst) part about that is that the GOP butthurt not because President Obama said we would not intervene and now are, but because the intervention isn't big enough.

And, they're not wrong. In the choice between deciding we can't improve the situation and staying out (my pick) or deciding freedom exceptionalism whatever and sending 60,000 troops, he's picked a weird sucky middle ground. Essentially, we are going to get involved enough to get stuck with all the gakky parts of being involved, but not involved enough to actually make a functional difference.

I think it's a terrible decision, and I think it's also (another) unlawful conflict without any legal basis from Congress.

And yet the congress critters will continue to fund it, implicitly granting permission/authorization.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

That's only because they can't come up with an alternative. They've tried and failed... Surprising, I know.

**dogma**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
That's only because they can't come up with an alternative. They've tried and failed... Surprising, I know.

Not to mention that very few GOP Congressmen want to be seen cutting military funding.

**Ouze**

No, that's the good kind of welfare.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
No, that's the good kind of welfare.

Of course you can make the argument that defense spending IS one of the things the Feds are supposed to do accodring to the constitution...

Then again, you can see stuff like this:

http://www.stripes.com/news/what-do-you-get-for-766-million-in-afghanistan-dod-isn-t-sure-1.376465

and realize that even when constitutionally mandated, idiots are going to do idiotic things. Hell, the example in that article is flat out fraud/waste/abuse and someone should see the inside of a cell for a while over it. Several someone's more likely.

Don't tell me we can't make cuts to defense when you use the money we are giving you as in the example above.

**Ouze**

I'm honestly not sure if you're just agreeing with me, or not realizing I was being sarcastic and rebutting me.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:

Of course you can make the argument that defense spending IS one of the things the Feds are supposed to do accodring to the constitution...

Actually, the Constitution makes no mention of what the Federal government is supposed to do, it deals only with what it is permitted to do. Congress has the Constitutional authority to dissolve the entire military tomorrow.

**CptJake**

I don't see defense spending as 'the good welfare' as it is spending the Fed gov't is constitutionally supposed to do.

Having said that, they (DoD) sure as gak don't spend efficiently/smartly and then whine that they need more. I guess at that point you become correct as a lot of DoD funding ends up being nothing more than welfare $$$ to spend in some congress critter's state/district.

I'm against ALL the mis-spending and waste we get from our gov't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:

Of course you can make the argument that defense spending IS one of the things the Feds are supposed to do accodring to the constitution...

Actually, the Constitution makes no mention of what the Federal government is supposed to do, it deals only with what it is permitted to do. Congress has the Constitutional authority to dissolve the entire military tomorrow.

You're smarter than this. The constitution was not meant to be all permissive. It laid out what the Feds can do. It left everything else to the states. There is no "and anything else not mentioned the Feds should do if they feel the urge' clause.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:

You're smarter than this. The constitution was not meant to be all permissive. It laid out what the Feds can do. It left everything else to the states. There is no "and anything else not mentioned the Feds should do if they feel the urge' clause.

I didn't say otherwise. Congress has the Constitutional authority to dissolve the military because it has no Constitutional duty to maintain one. Everything under Article 1, Section 8 is prefaced by the phrase "The Congress shall have power to..." including both "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;", and "To provide and maintain a navy;". It can do either of these things if it so chooses, but it doesn't have to.